[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
The difference is that i deliberately distinguish between the actions of your fellow people, and the actions of your government. i wish more Americans would extend the same maturity and seriousness towards the people of Iraq and not view "Iraq" as comprised of 24 million Saddam Husseins.
[/QUOTE]
Where has the govt. or Americans at large stated its animosity for the citizens of Iraq-that they are comprised of 24 million Saddams? The answer is they haven't. The leadership has publicly and incessantly stated and acted otherwise. So far more Brits and Americans have died in the conflict than Iraqis. I hope they continue to hound the Iraqi leadership with military pressure and missiles, etc. until they give up, leave or die. The view that Saddam has got to go has prevailed on this board, at the U.N. and elsewhere. Now it's happening in the only way it can. Without U.S. pressure there would have been no inspectors back in Iraq and without U.S. pressure there will be no hope for the end of Saddam. The person who more than anyone on this planet who has shown utter disregard for the citizens of Iraq is Saddam-and he's on his way out....FINALLY. If the hyperbole, and misrepresentation of the facts were able to stop U.S. action against Saddam, it would only serve to prolong the suffering of the Iraqi people.
The impetus for this conflict was to finish the unfinished business of nonproliferation of WMDs in the hands of despotic regimes, a legitimate goal in itself. The great byproduct will be a potential for self determination for the Iraqi people. The issue with Iraq has been the same for 12 years. U.N. wanted him disarmed, Clinton wanted him disarmed and out of power, threatening the same use of force to do it. Someone is now going to see that it gets done-(Saddam gone is good for everybody) That's leadership.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Spock: *
I read something about them using a plan by a former pentagon tactical expert, which was pretty interesting as so far his strategy remains flawless as the US forces are hardly getting any resistance.
[/QUOTE]
I am not sure that there is no resistance because of the strategy.
>>Where has the govt. or Americans at large stated its animosity for the citizens of Iraq-that they are comprised of 24 million Saddams? The answer is they haven’t.<<
Actions speak louder than words. Study the actions of your government vis-a-vis Iraq for the past twelve years, with an honest approach. If you did this, i know there is no way you would be able to state the above.
>>I hope they continue to hound the Iraqi leadership with military pressure and missiles, etc. until they give up, leave or die.<<
Do you realize that Iraq is made up of 24 million i n d i v i d u a l s? They are not the “leadership”, “regime”, “government” or “Saddam’s cronies”. They are innocents.
>>That’s leadership.<<
The same leadership that has torn multilateral treaties (Kyoto Protocol, ABM treaty), rejected outright any measures towards the creation of an international court - bypassed the United Nations completely, gone against the majority of the world’s wishes, slaughtered 1.5m Iraqis and countless other civilians, endorsed and funded Israel’s apartheid policies - this is leadership ?
You will need to prove this "slaughter". This kind of accusation cannot help any reasonable dialogue. It's tired, preposterous, inflammatory and most important, wholly untrue.
Obviously, you have chosen to ignore the conclusions of reports from Unicef, Red Cross, UN World Food Programme, UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, UN Food and Agriculture Organization, American, Canadian and British churches, the Vatican ....
No proof of this "slaughter"? The proof is there, for anyone courageous enough to acknowledge it.
Show me a document from any of these organizations that explicity states that the U.S. is solely responsible for the active and participatory slaughter/murder of 1.6 million Iraqis. If you cannot, then I will not accept your acessment of the situation, nor the false and inflamatory language you continue to use regarding this situation.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
*You will need to prove this "slaughter". This kind of accusation cannot help any reasonable dialogue. It's tired, preposterous, inflammatory and most important, wholly untrue.
Obviously, you have chosen to ignore the conclusions of reports from Unicef, Red Cross, UN World Food Programme, UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, UN Food and Agriculture Organization, American, Canadian and British churches, the Vatican ....
No proof of this "slaughter"? The proof is there, for anyone courageous enough to acknowledge it.
[/QUOTE]
Are you talking about the slaughter advocated and supported by Chomsky and the liberal appeasers when they wanted the UN to impose sanctions upon Iraq as the preferred route to disarmament?
Storch, Please conduct a search in this Forum for the numerous Iraq-sanctions threads - all the links of the various NGOs i have named above, is located in these threads. Every single time that i have discussed this issue, the discussion has ALWAYS tended to end with people implying that the UN was biased, or, my personal favourite, people just end up not replying to the thread. i am not wasting my time anymore - please conduct a search for sanctions-related threads in this Forum, and you will find information there. There is a specific thread titled, “Folder - Iraq and Sanctions” - that might be more useful for your purposes.
My Voice The US government has had 13 years to assess and study the consequences of sanctions - anyone who may have previously endorsed the embargo, such as Chomsky, have had the courage and logic to modify their opinions in the face of incontrovertible evidence. For the US government to continue pursuing the path of sustaining this trade embargo, despite all objective assessments that showed it was claiming the lives of 5000 children a month - that, to me, is genocide. You don’t continue to endorse something once you realize that the policy you are in favour of, is causing such devastating consequences. To continue to do so, is to knowingly commit a policy of slaughter, i.e., genocide. If these were any other people besides Iraqi, i have to say i am pretty certain the world would not have stood by and allowed this to occur.
You do of course mean the UN sanctions, NOT the US sanctions. That was the will of the entire world community. (The UN, that bastion of morality and wisdom).
Perhaps you do not remember, but a month or two after 9/11 Tarik Aziz went to see Kofi Annan, to start up discussions on eliminating sanctions. Annan would barely even meet with him.
As far as Chomsky, that is the advantage of a professional critic. He can change his mind in a minute with no consequences. His point however in recommending sanctions originally is that Saddams behavior would change given the draconian nature of the sanctions. Saddams behavior did not change. Thus we are stuck with the worst possible outcome. Sanctions and War.
Sorry, to be more specific i should have stated UN Security Council sanctions, sustained for over a decade by the US. No relation whatsoever with the UN General Assembly.
Nadia: Correct me if I'm wrong here but I think it was the US that proposed a different solution to the problem of disarmament. A solution that is now playing itself out. The French and some others seemed intent on continuing sanctions in conjunction with continued weapons inspections for some indefinite period.
Maybe you could further educate me and tell me what Chomsky's Iraq solution was after he decided that his idea of sanctions wouldn't work. I can't seem to recall what his alternative to sanctions was.
Chomsky's stance is no different than that pursued by the majority of anti-sanctions activists... to sum it up in a few words - lift non-military sanctions.
As for the US stance - we will see how quickly the US govt. moves to lift all civilian aspects of the trade embargo, once this illegal invasion is officially finished.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Chomsky's stance is no different than that pursued by the majority of anti-sanctions activists... to sum it up in a few words - lift non-military sanctions.
[/QUOTE]
Oh. That sounds good. And do what to disarm Iraq? I'll answer for you: A big fat nothing.
[QUOTE]
As for the US stance - we will see how quickly the US govt. moves to lift all civilian aspects of the trade embargo, once this illegal invasion is officially finished.
[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure I heard Rusfeld today mention lifting those sanctions real soon. (Unless, of course the French veto it). In fact, food, medicine and other things ought to be pouring in to Iraq soon after Basrah is taken and the harbors get de-mined, with or without the French OK.
In fact, food, medicine and other things ought to be pouring in to Iraq soon...
lolz... :D i never knew it but you have a good sense of humour, MV.
Hey, 13 years after we've deliberately withheld aspirin, chlorine, dialysis equipment, insulin, food, paper, books, fruits, from entering Iraq - now all of a sudden we're going to 'pour' this stuff in to the country. Aren't we excellent humanitarians now.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
**In fact, food, medicine and other things ought to be pouring in to Iraq soon...*
lolz... :D i never knew it but you have a good sense of humour, MV.
[/QUOTE]
That's because you haven't taken the time to really get to know me. :)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Iraq Freedom-Operation name
Only there to remove a threat and give control to the Iraqi people -Bush
[/QUOTE]
UTD, many countries in the world persecute their own people. Would the US be altruistic enough to go into each of those countries and liberate its people?
Myvoice is a lawyer, if your hands are in your pockets, might as well keep a firm grip on your wallet! (just kidding big guy)
Rumsfeld did indeed list the lifting of sanctions as one of the five goals of the conflict. The American people do not wish Iraqis ill. Just the leadership. (I believe I have heard the same thing in reverse lately)
The US government has had 13 years to assess and study the consequences of sanctions - anyone who may have previously endorsed the embargo, such as Chomsky, have had the courage and logic to modify their opinions in the face of incontrovertible evidence. For the US government to continue pursuing the path of sustaining this trade embargo, despite all objective assessments that showed it was claiming the lives of 5000 children a month - that, to me, is genocide. You don’t continue to endorse something once you realize that the policy you are in favour of, is causing such devastating consequences. To continue to do so, is to knowingly commit a policy of slaughter, i.e., genocide. If these were any other people besides Iraqi, i have to say i am pretty certain the world would not have stood by and allowed this to occur.